Lauren Daugherty: ‘Standing up for Marcus and millions like him’

Yesterday, our chair Nicholas Sarwark, our executive director Wes Benedict, and I were sitting at the airport in Kansas City, waiting to fly home after this weekend’s national committee meeting.

We were talking about politics, race, and how the Libertarian Party wants to help all people live better, freer, more prosperous lives. We talked about the war on drugs and how it is ruining the lives of so many. We talked about removing regulations that prevent entrepreneurs from starting businesses and how these regulations particularly hurt lower income folks who don’t have the resources to overcome those hurdles. We talked about our Libertarian belief that all people are created equal, no exceptions.

I noticed, as we talked, multiple airport employees were lingering near our table, listening to our conversation. As we got up to leave, Marcus* stopped by our table. Marcus is a young African American man, who works at this airport. He said that he really liked what we were saying and thought it was inspirational. He wanted to know where we work.

Nick told him about the Libertarian Party and that we stand for “all rights, of all people, all the time.”

Marcus told us about his eagerness to go to school and build a better life for himself and his sister. He talked about how smart his sister is and that her dream is to own a home and have a family. He said that America is big enough and prosperous enough for everyone to succeed and asked what we thought was the reason that so many struggle so hard to find the American dream.

Nick told Marcus that the Libertarian Party seeks to help all people by removing government interference into their lives…by removing regulations that make it much harder to find a job, or create jobs, or buy a home. Nick said that we Libertarians want each person to be free to decide the details of his or her own life without government interference. He explained that we all benefit greatly from removing that government interference because college becomes more affordable, homes become more affordable, jobs become more available, people can start more businesses, and so on.

Marcus told us about his own struggles and thanked us for doing what we are doing. He said he wants to see us be very successful with our work. I gave him my phone number and this morning he called me, asking how he can become involved in the Libertarian Party.

Friends, we have a real call to action. There are millions like Marcus that feel like they have no voice in our current system. They feel that the deck is stacked against them. They know that our justice system is unfair and broken. They know that things are out of wack in so many ways and they want it fixed.

The Libertarian National Committee (LNC) met in Kansas City this weekend and made critical decisions on behalf of our party as we plan for big things in 2018. It was a very productive meeting.

The night before the meeting, we held a fundraising event at the home of a couple of Libertarian activists and leaders. At this event, we raised $67,800 towards our work to prepare for 2018! We think this is a new record for Libertarian fundraising at a small house party like this.

This happened because many Libertarians like you are eager to see our party grow as rapidly as possible and they are investing to help make that happen. Many thanks to all who gave in person and online.

We have so many incredible opportunities in front of us right now. The R Party is floundering. The D Party is weak. There is a large swath of Americans who don’t feel like either represents them or their values and who are looking for more options…better options.

The Libertarian Party is growing rapidly and we are laying a firm foundation for 2018 by pursuing ballot access in all 50 states plus DC, by recruiting candidates across America, and by building the infrastructure needed to help our candidates and state parties reach for the stars.

If you’d like to invest in that critical work, please do so now. We can’t wait until 3 months before election day to make this happen. What we do now has incredible ramifications for the 2018 elections.

So don’t delay. Think of the millions of folks, like our young friend at the airport, who are hungry for our ideas and for us to speak up for them.

Please help us make that happen.

Lauren Daugherty
Head of Development

*To protect the privacy of this person, we’ve changed his name for this publication.

When I was in Arkansas back in May, I had a black guy sign my Libertarian Party ballot access petition who was wearing a t-shirt that had a Confederate flag on it, and it said, “Southern, Black, and Proud.”

Was that before or after the woman that signed the petition who admitted she previously had an abortion but is now “pro-life,” and the Mexican immigrant who made sure to tell you after signing that he is now an ancap who believes the “we need to protect our borders?”

Yes, we encounter every kind of person you can imagine while gathering petition signatures. That particular black guy I referenced above in Arkansas was a good fellow.

I have encountered lots of good people from all backgrounds, but on the flipside, I have encountered lots of assholes from all backgrounds as well. Lots of people are in the apathetic middle.

FYI to Anthony, yes, I have run into women who had an abortion and now regret it, and I have also encountered Mexican Americans who oppose the mass immigration agenda.

I have a Mexican American friend from California who is a paleo-consevative (he does agree with libertarians on a lot of issues though), and he is vehemently opposed to illegal immigration. He also hates Antifa This person is petitioning in Michigan on some ballot initiatives right now. I could set up a conference call with him if you want. Michigan borders Ohio, so if you want to meet this person, it would not be that long of a drive for you.

Even so, I prefer a Libertarian Party where petition work is no longer an issue. All we have to do is sacrifice a little principle.

As a side benefit, we might actually win some elections of significance, which means I won’t get laughed at at family functions anymore, which is my primary motivating factor in life ever since my mom caught me with her latest issue of Glamour magazine.

Anthony Dlugos wrote:
“Even so, I prefer a Libertarian Party where petition work is no longer an issue. All we have to do is sacrifice a little principle.”

In 2014, the Libertarian Party was a qualified political party in Ohio. They needed 500 valid signatures for each candidate in their primary. That was 500 for Earl/Clark and 500 for Linnabary. That’s the same petition requirement for every party in Ohio.

LPO (LP Ohio) decided to use paid petitioners. The laws for paid petitioners are more complicated than the laws for volunteer petitioners. Republicans in Ohio found a basis for a legal attack. The Republicans won the legal battle.

Now LPO needs more than 53,000 valid signatures to get back on the ballot. One of the major parties in Ohio will surely launch another legal attack and LPO will need to defend that. If their drive survives, they will need to gather 500 valid signatures per candidate again to hold a primary election.

Libertarians in Ohio don’t have to sacrifice their principles, not even a little bit, to get 500 valid signatures per candidate. They need to show some energy, organize, carry clipboards, validate those signatures.

“In 2014, the Libertarian Party was a qualified political party in Ohio. They needed 500 valid signatures for each candidate in their primary. That was 500 for Earl/Clark and 500 for Linnabary. That’s the same petition requirement for every party in Ohio…Libertarians in Ohio don’t have to sacrifice their principles, not even a little bit, to get 500 valid signatures per candidate. They need to show some energy, organize, carry clipboards, validate those signatures.”

I’m not interested in struggling to get 500 valid signatures per candidate for the sole purpose of getting drubbed in the actual elections because we as a party are viewed as utopian dreamers. The dinosaur parties are bleeding support like a stuck pig. Four in ten Americans identify as independents. All those people should be ours. They’re not solely because our mindset…as a party…is a policy-free utopian vision regularly detached from reality that allows us to think voters with skin in the game (jobs, assets, pensions, mortgages, kids in school, etc) are ready for “radical change,” a straight-up delusion.

A Libertarian Party that managed to present viable policies to the American public and thus capture even a small percentage of those independents and folks sick of the dinosaur parties would be large enough to make 500 signatures a cakewalk and make legal attack by the Republicans completely out of the question.

I’m not interested in struggling to get 500 valid signatures per candidate for the sole purpose of getting drubbed in the actual elections because we as a party are viewed as utopian dreamers.

Charlie Earl was threatening to pull double digits and swing the election. That’s why the Republicans were so hell bent on playing dirty tricks to knock him off the ballot.

Four in ten Americans identify as independents. All those people should be ours.

Why? Most of them are not even remotely in the ballpark of being independents. You sound like you want to recreate the Reform Party on the late 1990s. See the Reform Party of ever since then for where that leads.

It’s no wonder why the LP’s membership is dropping like a rock when it is interested only in virtue signaling to SJWs and minorities that are not the least bit interested in libertarianism, a few tokens here and there excepted, while deriding and vilifying those who actually such as the Mises Institute, Rand and Ron Paul, Augustus Invictus, Christopher Cantwell, Sonny Landham, etc.

Which principles do you think should be sacrificed Anthony, and how do you think abandoning them would help the freedom movement in the long run? Do you even hold those principles yourself?

The libertarian movement is engaged in an epic struggle for freedom, for choice, for letting people determine the course of their own lives. When I look back at other epic struggles for liberty and justice (some of which are still ongoing), such as ending plantation slavery, equal rights for women, GLBTQ people and others, fighting for democracy and basic human rights against absolute monarchy, etc., I can’t think of any instances where I think these causes would have been better off in the long run if the people who were right had sacrificed their principles, abandoned their commitment to standing for what’s morally right and just.

Should Rosa Parks have gone and sat quietly at the back of the bus? Should members of ACT UP have stopped “acting up” and just accepted that you don’t express same-sex affection in public? Should people fighting for democracy and “one person one vote” have accepted, maybe, 3/5ths of a vote as a compromise? I think not.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you mean well, but I think your arguing for a less passionate defense of freedom is counter-productive. That is the result of sacrificing principle – you also sacrifice passion and the ability to inspire people, because few people are inspired or motivated by groups that adopt weak goals and slogans that fall short of what they actually believe.

Assuming you spend time commenting here because you do want to advance the cause of freedom, I would encourage you to refocus your efforts toward arguing with those who are arguing for less freedom than you are, not with those who stand up for more. In some cases this may mean finding forums better suited to our political beliefs, but if each of us try to do this, we will end up putting our energy toward supporting freedom rather than opposing it, without sacrificing our own principles or views.

Democracy and freedom are not necessarily the same thing. I agree with your overall point, and I agree with utilizing democratic procedures while we have them in place if it can be used to advance the cause of liberty, but ultimately, democracy is mob rule/tyranny of the majority, as in under pure democracy, 51% of the people can vote away the rights of 49% of the people.

If we lived in a purist libertarian society, democractic elections would only be held by voluntary organizations, and the results of the election would only apply to people who voluntarily consented to the election.

If anything, in our present society, there actually should be more restrictions on voting in government elections. I bet there’d be a lot more freedom in this country if people who received government welfare (including corporate board members who get hand outs from government), government employees, and government contractors, wrtr all be barred from voting, or from donating to political campaigns. I know that getting this passed would be extremely difficult, and probably next to impossible in our current political climate, but this not mean that it is not true. If I could go back in a time machine to when the Constitution was written, and I could be a delegate to that convention, I’d lobby to have a clause like this to be added to the Constitution.

Andy, I agree at least in part. It’s not an accident that I mentioned “fighting for democracy” in the context of “against absolute monarchy”, and not just as a free-standing ideal. My view of democracy is similar to Churchill’s – the worst system of government except for all the others (seemingly distant libertarian solutions excepted).

I’m with you on the desirability of prohibiting government employees from voting under the present system. That’s pretty clear-cut. Political donations however, are a form of free speech, and like other consensual transactions, banning them is notoriously ineffective. Since campaign contributions are going to take place anyway so long as elected officials wield power that people want to influence, I’d rather allow such contributions and require only that they be transparently reported, instead of driving them underground.

Denying government contractors the right to vote? That gets a bit blurrier. If you worked in a low-level position for a company that accepted a government contract, would you suddenly lose the right to vote? How about if you held stock in such a company?

But I’m definitely not in favor of taking the right to vote away from people who receive government benefits. That’s virtually everyone in society. Consider roads, libraries, post offices, military protection, et cetera, et cetera. While you’re right that democracy and freedom aren’t the same thing, in a statist environment I believe democracy tends to decentralize power, and that this dispersal of power is a good thing.

Further, if libertarians were to champion allowing only a small percentage of the population to vote, libertarianism would tend be seen as a philosophy of the elité, when it should be seen as a philosophy of the masses (and will be sharply limited in its appeal if it is not). This consideration is also a reason why – morality aside – trying to exclude the masses via border controls is a bad idea in practical political terms.

JT writes, in part (August 22, 2017 at 16:33), “It’s no wonder why the LP’s membership is dropping like a rock…”

I disagree with the implication and accuracy of that statement. There is usually a drop-off in paid LP memberships after a presidential election year and 2017 hasn’t been an exception, but I don’t think membership is “dropping like a rock”. Some states such as Alaska are seeing their membership numbers increasing. And meanwhile, the number of registered Libertarians is significantly up.

I regularly try and use humor when I am making a point. I meant to put scare quotes around “principles” in the post you are referring to. The reason there being that pragmatics like myself often get told by multiple factions within the party that only THEY stand for principle, so I like to use the tried and true tactic of accepting the criticism thrown my way and using it as a badge of honor. Especially in our context, when “standing for principle” frequently seems to imply, “ignoring the voters’ wishes,” which to me is nothing to be proud of, given that we are in the arena of electoral politics. To give an example from 2016, we have plenty of evidence that voters will not vote for, nor pay attention to, a 35-year old blogger who’s never held office before who is running for President. They don’t think he is qualified and never will. Well, to that blogger’s followers, that wasn’t important, he was the “principled” Libertarian in the race from their perspective. Well, I say all he was was catastrophically unqualified, and “principled” was just a way of ignoring what the voters typically look for in a President.

So, to answer your questions, those “principles” I want to sacrifice are the ones for which we have abundant evidence indicating the voters of this country want no part of…at this time. There are multiple policy areas where the voters have repeatedly indicated they want some government involvement. Our job as a party is to accept such parameters and fashion policy proposals informed by libertarianism that fit within those parameters, not insist to the voters that they are wrong and double down on trying to explain to them why they are wrong and then take on a messianic mission suggesting we are in an “epic struggle for freedom.” I mean no offense, but that strikes me as so much hubris and it don’t play in the electoral arena.

What does this mean in practice? It means if the voters, say, are clear that they are okay with theft in order to continue funding some form of social security (and they are), then we are going to fashion policy proposals that continue the theft, informed with some choice options born of our belief that people can manage their own lives and futures responsibly.

How do I think “abandoning” the “principle” of an “immediate end to social security” will help the freedom movement in the long run? Because it will put our policy proposals, which move in the direction of libertarianism, within the realm of the acceptable to the voter, which, in the electoral arena, IS ALL THAT MATTERS. Not our own personal utopias. Not our “principles.” Beyond a basic understanding of how libertarianism informs public policy, our opinions don’t count. The voters’ opinions do.

How does all that pertain to my original point of 8:38 on 8/22? My point was that, by moving our mission and proposals into the realm of the acceptable, we won’t have to struggle with petitioning requirements anymore. We’ll have millions of members instead of thousands, and we’ll actually begin moving public policy in a libertarian direction. The GOP and Dems have been bleeding millions of supporters for years. Every one of them could have been ours in my opinion, and we get almost none of them. Why? There must be a reason. That’s a terrible failure on our part, IMHO.

The luminaries and groups you mention in your post…Rosa Parks, ACT UP, the GLBTQ movement, the equal rights movement…those aren’t political parties. The LP can’t operate the way they did/do. They aren’t appealing to voters qua voters. They are allowed to incite, anger, demand action. We…and by we I mean the LP, NOT the freedom movement…aren’t. Our job is very specific: demonstrate fitness for public office. Once there, the job is very mundane, and probably very boring to the many libertarians who want “a world set free in our lifetimes.” Once there, the job is deciding between a few bad alternatives for some policy, trying to figure out which one might move public policy two inches in the right direction, or trying to get a rider attached that will move public policy in a libertarian direction. Or maybe proposing a bill in, say, drug policy, that falls far short of complete legalization, in the hopes that it can get enough co-sponsors and get enacted into law. None of that is sexy, but it has teeth.

Starchild said: “I’m with you on the desirability of prohibiting government employees from voting under the present system. That’s pretty clear-cut. Political donations however, are a form of free speech, and like other consensual transactions, banning them is notoriously ineffective. Since campaign contributions are going to take place anyway so long as elected officials wield power that people want to influence, I’d rather allow such contributions and require only that they be transparently reported, instead of driving them underground.”

It is possible that prohibiting government employees, contractors, and welfare recipients from voting would be enough to solve the problems (that is people voting themselves more “benefits” at the expense of the rest of the population), but if one really wanted to take this further, to ensure that elected officials were not being bribed in the form of campaign contributions from people who are looking for more “goodies” from the state, then yes, these people should also be barred from donating to political campaigns. Just imagine, no government school teachers union, no police union, no prison guard union, no defense contractors, etc…, being able to vote or influence elections via campaign contributions.

“Denying government contractors the right to vote? That gets a bit blurrier. If you worked in a low-level position for a company that accepted a government contract, would you suddenly lose the right to vote? How about if you held stock in such a company?”

I don’t think that it gets any blurrier. Government contractors are still being paid with taxpayer funds. Government contractors support candidates who are going to give them government contracts, because there is a lot of money to made off of contracting with government.

If our goal is to reduce the size of government, or to at least keep government small, prohibiting people who work as government contractors from voting or from donating to political campaigns would help accomplish this.

You brought up low level employees of government contractors. The employee of the government contractor would have to make a choice. Do they want to be able to vote and donate to political campaigns, or do they want to work for a government contractor? If voting and donating to political campaigns is important to them, then they will chose to not work for a government contractor. The key is to create incentives that keep coercive government as small as possible, or to make it go away completely.

You also brought up what if somebody owns stock in a corporation that contracts with government. I could see an argument for preventing them from voting or donating to political campaigns as well, because it would give investors the incentive to not invest in companies who do business with the state. The prohibition on voting or donating to political campaigns could just be applied to the corporate board members, or to investors who own over a certain value of stock in a company, but if you really want to limit the influence of buying “favors” with campaign contributions, then it could be extended to everyone who owns stock in the corporation that contracts with the government. Don’t like it? Then don’t work for or invest in one of these companies.

A lot of people do not vote as it is, so I’d bet that there would be people out there who’d still become government employees, or government contractors even if it meant that they gave up their “right” to vote and to donate to political campaigns (and in our current system, I’d say that their campaign “donations” are more like bribes to politicians to keep the taxpayer money flowing to them).

“But I’m definitely not in favor of taking the right to vote away from people who receive government benefits. That’s virtually everyone in society. Consider roads, libraries, post offices, military protection, et cetera, et cetera. While you’re right that democracy and freedom aren’t the same thing, in a statist environment I believe democracy tends to decentralize power, and that this dispersal of power is a good thing.”

There is a difference between general welfare and specific welfare. Everyone using roads/sidewalks, and things like libraries and parks are open to everyone. Military, police, and firefighting is something everyone is forced to pay for and all of the public receives its “services” (I’m not getting into the merits or demerits of these “services” right now, particularly when it comes to military and police).

What I was referring to when I said barring people from voting or donating to political campaigns are people who receive Marxist wealth redistribution from the state, as in specific welfare, as in people who are receiving things like food stamps/EBT, WIC, SSI, etc…, and I would also include corporations (or at least the people who are on the corporate boards) who receive various forms of corporate welfare, including land handed to theme via Eminent Domain. These people should not be able to vote or take part in politics, because they are perversely inceitivized to support politicians who want to increase the size of government, and/or who want to keep government the size it is now. This is called a conflict of interest.

If my suggestion had been inserted into the US Constitution when it was written, it is quite possible that there never would have been a welfare state, and all of these unions and corporations feeding at the public trough like we have today, or at least problems like this would not be nearly as bad as they are today.

Just imagine elections under my scenario. They’d probably look at lot more like Libertarian Party conventions, minus people like Bob Barr, Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, etc… Libertarian and/or constitutionalist type of people could actually win if all of the money from government connected unions and corporations were eliminated, and if all of the voting blocks who routinely vote and lobby to increase the size of government were disenfranchised from the process of politics. The only people who’d be voting or donating to political campaigns would be people who aren’t getting any specific benefits from the state (use of public roads, sidewalks, parks, libraries, etc…, or protection services from military, police, or fire departments, is not what I am talking about here, as I mean people who are getting welfare checks, or who derive their living from working for, or contracting with, the government).

I think that a ban on foreign lobbyists ought to be strongly considered as well. The US government is supposed to work for the people of this country. Foreign influence should be kept out of government.

Why am I not surprised that Andy is okay with further restrictions on voting in government elections, barring it outright to some disfavored classes? Won’t be long before he’d be barring legal latino immigrants from voting, given that they would typically be opposed to his draconian immigration stance.

“George Phillies
August 24, 2017 at 13:44
‘There is usually a drop-off in paid LP memberships after a presidential election year …’

It’s a good throwaway line usually offered by LNC members as an excuse for not doing anything.”

It should also be pointed out that the Libertarian Party had over 33,000 dues paying members 17 years ago, and today it is less than 20,000 dues paying members, and that US population has increased since then, while the word libertarian has become more popular (in large part thanks to people like Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano, John Stossel, and others working outside the Libertarian Party), and more people are self identifying as being small “l” libertarians than ever.

So the Libertarian Party is obviously failing when it comes to building dues paying party membership ranks.

I recently spoke to somebody who made a bunch of fundraising calls off of the Gary Johnson for President 2016 list. They said that they talked to a lot of donors off of this list, who wanted nothing to do with the Libertarian Party, and who were just Republicans or Democrats who only donated because they were trying to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

Anthony, why should people who live off of the state, get to vote, when they have a clear conflict of interest, as in it is their incentive to vote for politicians who are going to ensure that they get more and more “goodies” from the state?

Is the government the servant or the master?

If you believe that the government is supposed to serve the public (as government propaganda suggests), then allowing people to vote who live off of government plunder means that what is supposed to be the servant of the people, rather than the master of the people.

Would you eat a a restaurant where the wait staff got to vote on how much of a tip you left them? What do you think the service would be like in such a restaurant?

My Mexican American friend from California, who is currently working in Michigan, agrees with me on immigration (actually, if anything, he is more “extreme” than I am on this issue).

Under my proposal for qualifying to vote, Latino immigrants, or any other immigrants from anywhere, would be able to vote, if they went through the legal citizenship process and became naturalized as citizens, and if they did not collect welfare, or work as government employees or government contractors.

I would like to see the naturalization process made more difficult. Would be immigrants who want to become citizens should have to pass something like Tom Woods Libetry Classroom, and/or Michael Badnarik’s Introduction to the Constitution, before they can become citizens. They should be well versed in knowledge about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and free market economics, and there should also be a class on the right to keep and bear arms, which includes trips to a firing range, whet they qualify with a pistol, a long rifle, and a military style assault rifle. I would also have a contract where they swear to not collect welfare, or to lobby on behalf of any foreign government. If they meet these qualifications, they will be granted American citizenship, and therefore be able to vote.